Mikey324
Quite Involved in Discussions
thats a scary thought. Opens the door for the dreaded "auditor interpretation".
New AIAG FMEA Process - How to complete the new format
- Thread starter Stevebod
- Start date
Read the bios of the two authors of this article: Introducing the AIAG-VDA DFMEA. Note the following excerpt: "Greg Gruska, co-author of this article, was on the writing committees of the MSA, SPC, and FMEA manuals. " Vested interest?
In my opinion new standard implements VDA vertical approach to FMEA filling instead of AIAG horizontal approach.
Meeting 1 (or pre-meeting job of FMEA leader) - Write down Item and function of process step and go home
Meeting 2 - Address requirements of part drawing and go home
Meeting 3 - Find failures and effects and go home
Meeting 4 - Define causes and establish controls and go home
For me bonus of vertical approach is that more requirements will be identified and process more deeply investigated.
When you say "A" during meeting 2 you have to say B, C ... during following meetings.
In horizontal approach there is a risk of limiting investigation because of uncertainty of when meeting will end and increasing tiredness as analysis continues.
This is my private, very simple interpretation of changes, which I call "self-tying noose". The more requirements you identify, the more failures you find, the more controls you have to establish.
Last question to buyers of new standard - do they keep no special characteristics in DFMEA as it was in draft?
Meeting 1 (or pre-meeting job of FMEA leader) - Write down Item and function of process step and go home
Meeting 2 - Address requirements of part drawing and go home
Meeting 3 - Find failures and effects and go home
Meeting 4 - Define causes and establish controls and go home
For me bonus of vertical approach is that more requirements will be identified and process more deeply investigated.
When you say "A" during meeting 2 you have to say B, C ... during following meetings.
In horizontal approach there is a risk of limiting investigation because of uncertainty of when meeting will end and increasing tiredness as analysis continues.
This is my private, very simple interpretation of changes, which I call "self-tying noose". The more requirements you identify, the more failures you find, the more controls you have to establish.
Last question to buyers of new standard - do they keep no special characteristics in DFMEA as it was in draft?
Last edited:
try2makeit
Quite Involved in Discussions
I'm not sure I can even get through the 1st page. The presentation you posted shows the confusion and complication of it. And I have already one Customer asking to submit PFMEAs in the new format. Unbelievable......for me its simply open up the new standard, read the first 4 pages, then go home.......
Ron Rompen
Trusted Information Resource
The new format is completely different..not difficult to set up in excel if you have an hour or two, but I am concerned that a normal spreadsheet only has about 5000 columns and I am worried that this may not be enough.. ...
..and if you want to print them out you will probably need to upgrade to a pair of A0 printers and lots of cellotape, (and cull a couple of rainforrests for the paper...).
.....and if you want to print them out you will probably need to upgrade to a pair of A0 printers and lots of cellotape, (and cull a couple of rainforrests for the paper...).
I would be interested if anyone has found some (hopefully inexpensive) software.
I have obtained my new manual, and read through the Process FMEA section. I am guessing that Excel wont be much use? (And certainly not my old way of completing FMEA forms in Word).
I did have a guy fro a company called Datalyzer contact me offering their software, but im not sure if its the right thing.
I have obtained my new manual, and read through the Process FMEA section. I am guessing that Excel wont be much use? (And certainly not my old way of completing FMEA forms in Word).
I did have a guy fro a company called Datalyzer contact me offering their software, but im not sure if its the right thing.
I'm waiting for the updated version of the AIAG CTS software to be released with the updated FMEA VDA information. It is $360 a year and looks like it could double as project management software as well. Hopefully it will offer a workable solution.
Hope this helps!